Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Comparative Efficacy of Dronabinol and Megestrol Acetate

2002; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 20; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1200/jco.2002.20.12.2912

1527-7755

Richard Reynolds, Aminah Jatoi, Charles L. Loprinzi, Harold E. Windschitl,

PARP inhibition in cancer therapy

Article Tools SPECIAL DEPARTMENTS Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.12.2912 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print September 21, 2016 PMID: 12065574 Comparative Efficacy of Dronabinol and Megestrol Acetate Richard ReynoldsxRichard ReynoldsSearch for articles by this author Aminah JatoixAminah JatoiSearch for articles by this author , Charles LoprinzixCharles LoprinziSearch for articles by this author , Harold WindschitlxHarold WindschitlSearch for articles by this author Show More Bossier City, LAMayo Clinic, Rochester, MNCentraCare Clinic, St Cloud, MN https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.12.2912 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2002 by American Society of Clinical OncologyjcoJ Clin OncolJournal of Clinical OncologyJCO0732-183X1527-7755American Society of Clinical OncologyResponse15062002In Reply:We are pleased to respond to Mr Reynolds’ concerns. Mr Reynolds notes that our article1 should be “revised to indicate the dosages.” He also notes that our negative findings may have resulted from the dose of dronabinol used in this trial. First, in the Abstract, Patients and Methods, and Discussion sections of our article, we explicitly state the doses of dronabinol and megestrol acetate used in this study. Dosing is obviously an important issue in cancer care, and we have been as unambiguous as possible in informing readers of the doses tested in this trial. Second, we agree that our negative findings with respect to dronabinol as an orexigenic agent may have resulted from the dronabinol dose we tested. However, we have clearly stated the rationale for our choice of the dose 2.5 mg twice a day. If the sole purpose of an agent is appetite stimulation, we think it injudicious to substitute one symptom for a set of others. Because earlier data from Nelson et al2 found an approximately 20% toxicity rate with a higher dose of dronabinol, we opted to test the lower dose of 2.5 mg twice a day. Of note, this decision on dronabinol dosing was made in concert with the manufacturers of dronabinol.Finally, Mr Reynolds states in his letter, “the enthusiasm the study wishes to dampen seems to be the enthusiasm for reclassifying marijuana to a Schedule II substance.” We are not opposed to the rigorous study of marijuana as a palliative or therapeutic agent for cancer patients. However, we did not test marijuana in our trial, nor do we claim to have tested it.1. Jatoi A, Windschitl HE, Loprinzi CL, et al: Dronabinol versus megestrol acetate versus combination therapy for cancer-associated anorexia: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study. J Clin Oncol 20:: 567,2002-573, Link, Google Scholar2. Nelson K, Walsh D, Deeter P, et al: A phase II study of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for appetite stimulation in cancer-associated anorexia. J Palliat Care 10:: 14,1994-18, Google Scholar